At the destruction of the internet? No. If you're going to use the tools to promote yourself, understand the potential consequences of doing so. Change your business model.

And you're thinking this is meant to protect the little guy, it's not. This is meant to protect Hollywood. The little guys are learning how to use it to their advantage.

How would you propose they do that?

Since the bulk of Hollywood is middlemen, start there. How much of the ticket sales, Blu-Ray/DVD sales, and digital downloads are going to the talent and operating expenses vs. how much is going to people who can easily be done away with?

iTunes did a great job at changing the music industry, so it can obviously be done.

At the destruction of the internet? No. If you're going to use the tools to promote yourself, understand the potential consequences of doing so. Change your business model.

And you're thinking this is meant to protect the little guy, it's not. This is meant to protect Hollywood. The little guys are learning how to use it to their advantage.

How would you propose they do that?

Since the bulk of Hollywood is middlemen, start there. How much of the ticket sales, Blu-Ray/DVD sales, and digital downloads are going to the talent and operating expenses vs. how much is going to people who can easily be done away with?

iTunes did a great job at changing the music industry, so it can obviously be done.

So Studios should buy out theatres and sell directly? If you want to see a movie by Paramount, go to a Paramount theatre and then if you want to see one by Pixar, go to a Pixar theatre?

At the destruction of the internet? No. If you're going to use the tools to promote yourself, understand the potential consequences of doing so. Change your business model.

And you're thinking this is meant to protect the little guy, it's not. This is meant to protect Hollywood. The little guys are learning how to use it to their advantage.

How would you propose they do that?

Since the bulk of Hollywood is middlemen, start there. How much of the ticket sales, Blu-Ray/DVD sales, and digital downloads are going to the talent and operating expenses vs. how much is going to people who can easily be done away with?

iTunes did a great job at changing the music industry, so it can obviously be done.

So Studios should buy out theatres and sell directly? If you want to see a movie by Paramount, go to a Paramount theatre and then if you want to see one by Pixar, go to a Pixar theatre?

From what I understand theaters don't make money of ticket sales, they make money on concessions. So the fat that needs to be trimmed is somewhere else.

But Maybe you would like to propose a way to stop piracy that actually has an impact on piracy, because SOPA and PIPA sure as **** won't. The only people that are going to get hurt there are the average users, not the pirates, just like every other anti-piracy bill that's gone through.

And you do realize SOPA and PIPA will have zero effect on you since the US can only control US based ISPs?

I don't support SOPA or PIPA, at all. I do beleive though, that far more needs to be done to protect copyrights and the businesses that own them.

I won't argue that they need to be protected, but that can't be done in a digital environment. So instead of ******** over the legitimate user with something that has zero impact on piracy, you have to remove the incentive to pirate the material in the first place. And the only thing that is going to do that is a change to the business model.

You can increase the penalty on piracy in an attempt to decrease the incentive, but the only thing you're going to get there is the low hanging fruit.

I won't argue that they need to be protected, but that can't be done in a digital environment. So instead of ******** over the legitimate user with something that has zero impact on piracy, you have to remove the incentive to pirate the material in the first place. And the only thing that is going to do that is a change to the business model.

You can increase the penalty on piracy in an attempt to decrease the incentive, but the only thing you're going to get there is the low hanging fruit.

EXACTLY how about pricing content fairly, making it easy for customers to give you their money, and getting rid of stupid streaming restrictions that make pirating more attractive?

a) Pricing content fairly: Hollywood needs to get a grip and realize people simply won't pay 20 bucks for a movie they only want to watch once. Netflix is a perfect example (in my mind) of pricing content fairly - 8 bucks a month for as much as I want to watch? Sweet!

We gave the free trial a shot and my girlfriend resolved immediately to pay the monthly fee. What's stopping studios from putting together similar services or partnering with companies who are already in the business? For example, paramount could have a streaming service like netflix with a monthly fee (maybe 5 bucks a month) which gave access to as many films from their older back catalogue as anyone could want. Then they could charge 2 bucks to "rent" a new release (24 hours access). This is just me having a brain ****, I'm sure someone who gets paid to think about how to make these studios money could figure out something even better. People only have so much time to watch stuff - so if you fill their time with affordable, on-demand content they'll be much less likely to pirate.

b) Making it easy for customers to give them money: Okay... wow, I mean I think every one of us probably has experience with a company that makes it REALLY DIFFICULT for us to give them money. My real life examples are all games - specifically XI (verified by visa was the crapper for me, others have trouble with click and steal etc) and OMFG the playstation network - I mean I don't buy games THAT often (and media go is crap so I never open it except to buy games) so I need to spend an hour downloading updates and reinstalling proprietary (crappy) programs on my machine just so I can give them money (using a prepaid card, which I love - love prepaid cards).

ANYWAY it is a HASSLE and I think to myself - gee no wonder a lot of people would rather deal with the one time hassle of setting up their PSP to play ripped games instead of paying money to waste time and be annoyed. - So yeah - this is basic. BASIC. Don't whine that you're losing money when you make it so **** hard to give you money.

This also includes making people download crappy programs (and keep them on their machine) if they want to give you money. It's a stupid way to make people uninterested in your service.

c) Stupid streaming restrictions: look folks - this is the internet. I don't care how you do it - but work out a way amongst yourselves to split the advertising cash between licensees so I can follow a link my American friend puts in chat when they're talking about a funny scene in Southpark. Don't make me go dig up the clip (which doesn't even exist) on Comedy Central. You make $0 when I swear and give up - whether I pirate the clip after or not. You know where I am looking at the link from, right? How hard is it to give comedy central a cut of the revenue you make from people on the other side of the 49th parallel? Please allow global websites to compete for my interest.

Would these things stop pirating entirely? No, and nothing will (short of shutting down the internet/spying at a level most of us wouldn't tolerate) - but they would help capture a lot of the market that isn't dead set on pirating, just frustrated with media giants that think this is still 1996.

Edited, Jan 20th 2012 11:58am by Olorinus

____________________________

lolgaxe wrote:

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

I don't 100% understand the law proposed, so I don't understand how this has "zero impact on piracy." Can you explain, please?

Basically a website that contains copyrighted content gets reported and the major US based ISPs are then instructed to reroute the DNS entry to another site (Likely a "Piracy is bad and you're a bad person" website). They aren't shutting down the site since they have no access to it, they're just changing the DNS entry.

In very basic terms, DNS is the phone book of the internet. When you type an address into your URL bar at the top of your browser, you don't actually go to that site since your browser has no clue what that site is. Instead you get sent to a DNS server which looks up the IP address for the address you just entered, gives your browser the IP address, then your browser takes you to that website. Most ISPs use their own DNS servers so they can rewrite the DNS entry as needed.

Smaller sites can probably change their IP address faster than the ISPs can change their DNS entries. Or, the person who wants to visit the site can just change the DNS server they use to look up these domains to a non-US based DNS server.

People who don't know what they're doing get screwed. Sites unknowingly or accidentally hosting or linking to copyrighted material get screwed. Anyone with half a brain and a little knowledge of how the internet works is untouched.

What's funny is browser plugins are already being created to get around this, and it hasn't even gone through yet. That's how easy it is to circumvent this.

And you're thinking this is meant to protect the little guy, it's not.

I have no idea where you arrived at me thinking this was about the "little guy". I don't care if the "guy" is the largest Hollywood studio, the biggest record company conglomerate or some indie guy with a guitar and a cam-phone. The have the right, under the law, to have their work protected. They also have the right to expect the government to uphold and enforce those laws. Perhaps not with a scorched earth approach but with some balanced approach that tries to find a middle ground between restricting the free flow of information and just cutting everyone off.

The "big guy" has just as much right to expect their protections under the government here as anyone else. Copyrights don't stop being enforceable just because some **** decides that he wants to watch The Dark Knight but "Hollywood" has enough money already.

Quote:

Since I can take the moral high ground on this issue, no, it's really not like that.

In following various threads around the net I can see I've seen little to no evidence supporting that.

Quote:

Edit: I do feel that copyright holders have a right to protect their content, but not at any cost.

Apparently the emphasis is on "not at any cost" since asking hosts to be pro-active about policing their own property is such a huge burden on them.

Smaller sites can probably change their IP address faster than the ISPs can change their DNS entries. Or, the person who wants to visit the site can just change the DNS server they use to look up these domains to a non-US based DNS server.

Realistically, comparatively few people will actually do this versus people who currently just type in piratebay.com and start downloading the free movies and music. Ask some geeks in general about your average computer user and everyone is a mouth-breathing ****** who couldn't find their own e-mail without Internet Explorer and AOL holding their **** for them. Ask about stopping copyright theft and suddenly everyone on the internet is going to locate and manually enter their own IP addresses to find secret file sharing sites.

MegaUpload didn't just turn a blind eye to copyright infringement, they actively rewarded premium users who supplied high quality rips of DVDs, in the form of cash. One dude got a check for five thousand dollars, according to an email in the indictment.

That's where the "racketeering" part came in. MegaUpload made sure that the pirated movie links never made it onto the "popular downloads" listing. They also never actually deleted infringing content after copyright holders complained, just one of the potentially dozens of unique URLs to it (the one the complaint was about.)

They're calling the entire operation the "Mega Conspiracy."

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

a) Pricing content fairly: Hollywood needs to get a grip and realize people simply won't pay 20 bucks for a movie they only want to watch once.

This is a load of crap. The price of admission isn't what keeps people from going to the movies, it's the price of confectionary. There are cheap movies all over the place, where admission is only $5, but is months after the movie's been released. Those places aren't setting attendance records over the theatres that charge full price.

MegaUpload didn't just turn a blind eye to copyright infringement, they actively rewarded premium users who supplied high quality rips of DVDs, in the form of cash. One dude got a check for five thousand dollars, according to an email in the indictment.

That's where the "racketeering" part came in. MegaUpload made sure that the pirated movie links never made it onto the "popular downloads" listing. They also never actually deleted infringing content after copyright holders complained, just one of the potentially dozens of unique URLs to it (the one the complaint was about.)

Since I can take the moral high ground on this issue, no, it's really not like that.

In following various threads around the net I can see I've seen little to no evidence supporting that.

So the major parts of the tech industry, including several members of the the internet regulatory boards who are in opposition to SOPA and PIPA, only care that they won't be able to get their free stuff anymore?

Quote:

Quote:

Edit: I do feel that copyright holders have a right to protect their content, but not at any cost.

Apparently the emphasis is on "not at any cost" since asking hosts to be pro-active about policing their own property is such a huge burden on them.

Feel free to ask Kao or any other mod around here how much time is invested into monitoring these boards without user intervention.

It has nothing to do with sites doing their due diligence. What you're expecting them to do is next to impossible. Retailers understand that shrinkage is part of doing business because they understand they can't monitor everything at all times. What makes you think a website open to a global audience is any different?

Quote:

Realistically, comparatively few people will actually do this versus people who currently just type in piratebay.com and start downloading the free movies and music. Ask some geeks in general about your average computer user and everyone is a mouth-breathing ****** who couldn't find their own e-mail without Internet Explorer and AOL holding their **** for them. Ask about stopping copyright theft and suddenly everyone on the internet is going to locate and manually enter their own IP addresses to find secret file sharing sites.

Yes because the idiots who know how to use the Googles are the problem, not the people moving terabytes of pirated material at a time.

So the major parts of the tech industry, including several members of the the internet regulatory boards who are in opposition to SOPA and PIPA, only care that they won't be able to get their free stuff anymore?

They're not posting on the web forums crying about how much money Hollywood has, now are they? I have no issue with people making intelligent points about it. Temper tantrums about Hollywood and the RIAA ain't it.

Quote:

Yes because the idiots who know how to use the Googles are the problem, not the people moving terabytes of pirated material at a time.

There's a **** of a lot more of the former than the latter. Eliminate (or drastically reduce the number of) them and free yourself up to handle the rest. Ultimately, the concern is about your average guy on the street and whether he'll pay for a movie ticket, rent/buy a DVD or grab the movie off the internet. The goal is to take away that last option or make it annoying enough to accomplish that he just heads to the local Redbox. The guys with terrabytes of stuff are the suppliers, the guy on the street is the consumer. Break the link between them and you're accomplishing something.

So the major parts of the tech industry, including several members of the the internet regulatory boards who are in opposition to SOPA and PIPA, only care that they won't be able to get their free stuff anymore?

They're not posting on the web forums crying about how much money Hollywood has, now are they? I have no issue with people making intelligent points about it. Temper tantrums about Hollywood and the RIAA ain't it.

Which part would you like to discuss? The part where this is basically DNS spoofing? Or how about this destroying all the progress that's been made in DNSsec? How about the censorship aspect? Or the free speech violations that are almost guaranteed to follow? How about the potential damage to the internet as a whole due to a country that has no right to regulate an international platform? Maybe you'd like to discuss the damage Hollywood already does to small business because of the censorship deals that allow them to reach into Youtube and take down content that they feel infringes on their copyrights without having to answer to anyone or prove that the content was in violation of a copyright?

Or how about we discuss Hollywood buying a bill the exact same way they did with the DMCA? A bill that will do all of the things previously mentioned yet have no impact on piracy? How about the fact that Hollywood has been trying to control the internet for years because they feel it has no value and is used primarily for piracy?

I don't care how much money Hollywood makes. I care when they use that money to buy their way through the legal system to seriously impact the legit user in an attempt to stop piracy in a way that the people who regulate the internet are telling them will not work.

You do understand that the DMCA has allowed Hollywood to trample all over free speech and fair use, has made security research a punishable offense, and is the reason I have to buy the same movie 5 **** times to watch it in various formats on hardware that I own? The same Hollywood that you're essentially going to give regulatory control to and expect them to use that power responsibly? I really hope you're joking.

Realistic proposals to curtail copyright theft on the internet. You aren't willing to talk about that though despite it being the only really important thing because, news flash, the affected industries aren't going to say "Oh, well! Guess it just sucks to be us!"

Realistic proposals to curtail copyright theft on the internet. You aren't willing to talk about that though despite it being the only really important thing because, news flash, the affected industries aren't going to say "Oh, well! Guess it just sucks to be us!"

More things like Netflix, Spotify, Pandora, etc. The entertainment media industry has never been big on moving with the times. They made this exact same play when VHS recording was made possible in like '82 or whatever. Said it would cost the industry millions and society would crumble around our ears blah blah.

Essentially these companies demanding things like SOPA/PIPA need to get with the fucking times, man.

This is a great TED talk on how the fashion industry makes money and doesn't worry about copyright infringement. I didn't know that it is totally legal to copy any garment... apparently other than the trademark, which is protected by copyright - fashion is copyright free

The graphic of earnings for Low IP vs High IP industries at 12:36 is awesome

Edited, Jan 20th 2012 3:46pm by Olorinus

____________________________

lolgaxe wrote:

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

Realistic proposals to curtail copyright theft on the internet. You aren't willing to talk about that though despite it being the only really important thing because, news flash, the affected industries aren't going to say "Oh, well! Guess it just sucks to be us!"

I'll happily discuss it, assuming you have some magic way to differentiate one set of ones and zeros from another set of ones and zeros in transit without completely destroying any semblance of security on the internet.

Or you could propose a solution for sites like Youtube to monitor the 48+ hours worth of video uploads they get every minute without user intervention.

I am curious how you expect a company to differentiate copyrighted material from non-copyrighted material though, excluding the obvious stuff. There's a reason people are expected to protect their own copyrights, and it isn't because everyone else is lazy.

Lets just make this easy. The only way to do it is to ask the sites to take the material down, which most sites do. If they don't they get taken offline. Even if you do manage to devise some way to regulate it, how do you propose we apply that to websites we have no control over? The internet is designed to move around blocks and outages, the basic purpose of a router is to route traffic to and from its destination.

First, we need to approach the reasons why people turn to ThePirateBay and other places for their ill gotten goods.

1. Convenience. I have a copy of Vista Home Premium (gag) OEM that I downloaded off TPB because my father in law lost his installation CDs, and it would take Toshiba a month to get them for me. He had a valid Vista license because he bought a laptop that included the shiny sticker on the bottom. Far, far easier to just find a torrent, call Microsoft and go through the automated nag prompts, and be done with it. I think all PC retails should have OEM copies of their OSes available for download, if you have a valid service tag or serial number. It's just as easy for me to enter a serial number on a website as it is to enter Microsoft's 56 digit security code.

2. Price. Brand new content is too expensive. Older content is too expensive. I think opening night tickets for a movie should be jacked up in price (because the fans will pay it), and then the price should rapidly decay after that first all important box office weekend is over, until a month later it's out of theaters and a buck to watch on Video On Demand. For music, CDs need to include more value added goodies as an incentive to buy them. (I own two actual FFXI music CDs, not because I wanted the music, but because I wanted the little in game item....) For books, hardback collector's editions should always cost more than the digital editions, but also come with something extra.

3. Timeliness. This applies primarily to the foreign language import market (e.g. Japanese anime and manga). Under the "old" model, an anime would come out in Japan, after it was finished showing it would be licensed for release in the US, and a year or two later put out in very nice quality on DVD. That model went on life support, the moment anime fans discovered crappy Real Media Sachi Gumi fansub VHS rips, and died an ignoble death once digital subtitling became fast and easy. (Took down many a media company too, such as Pioneer, Central Park Media, etc, that had staked their business on that model.) The content producers in Japan finally said, "If you can't beat them, join them" and officially sanctioned Crunchy Roll was born. Episodes are released in English, subtitled, at decent quality, shortly after they air in Japan. Viewers watch ads - sometimes the original ads in Japanese when they're for products also produced in the US. Fans get to watch fresh anime shortly after it airs in Japan, but episodes are not archived forever, and if you missed the first season of Naruto, well, time to go buy a box set.

There are other reasons people pirate, but price, access, and convenience are the big three.

Crunchy Roll and Netflix are two good industry solutions to the "access" part. Apple just took aim at book prices, 99 cent iTunes downloads are a good example of a price point most people can agree on, and RedBox rentals is about as cheap as a non pirated movie can get.

The big thing that companies are dragging their feet on is convenience. This is because they want to control when, where, and how people experience their content, even when the time and place the content is available is inconvenient or nonexistent. I want to listen to music in MP3 format on my Walkman headphones. That rules iTunes right out. I want to finish fixing this laptop today, not when you finish sending me the physical CDs in the mail three weeks from now. I want to watch the movie from the comfort of my couch, not on opening night in a very loud theater surrounded by sweaty men and crying babies.

Edited, Jan 20th 2012 6:44pm by catwho

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

I'll happily discuss it, assuming you have some magic way to differentiate one set of ones and zeros from another set of ones and zeros in transit without completely destroying any semblance of security on the internet.

If that's the best you can do, learn to live with the inevitable Son of SOPA, I guess. The industries aren't going to just give up and you apparently have nothing to offer.

Oh, please. It costs like $3 to rent a new release from the local video store. I think it's a buck from Redbox. Pay a couple bucks to rent it from your cable/satellite provider if you're too lazy to leave the house.

Furthermore, "costs too much" doesn't justify stealing it. We're not talking bread or medicine here, we're talking about Hollywood movies. You can't get anymore into the "luxury" column than stuff that's nothing more than a temporary pleasurable experience. The reason people steal them is because they're self-entitled and selfish and use "cost" after the fact to justify their self-entitlement.

Quote:

99 cent iTunes downloads are a good example of a price point most people can agree on, and RedBox rentals is about as cheap as a non pirated movie can get.

The thing is, iTunes gets you about 1/14th of an album for your buck. They're just splitting the album up and charging you by the track approximately what you'd have paid per track for the entire album. You can't really so that with a movie ("I'll buy DVD chapter six!") and, if a four minute song is worth $1, how do you price a two hour movie? As you said, Redbox is about as cheap as you could ever hope for... and people still steal the stuff.

I'll happily discuss it, assuming you have some magic way to differentiate one set of ones and zeros from another set of ones and zeros in transit without completely destroying any semblance of security on the internet.

If that's the best you can do, learn to live with the inevitable Son of SOPA, I guess. The industries aren't going to just give up and you apparently have nothing to offer.

I've already given a realistic solution to the problem, you just don't like the answer. Care to add a constructive option?

For music, CDs need to include more value added goodies as an incentive to buy them.

I have to give the smashing pumpkins serious cred for the way they have handled their new releases. They all go up, online, for free - and then they sell absolutely gorgeous LP/CD sets for like 25-35 bucks for the collectors. Everyone can listen - the band makes money off the premium objects and off of touring (oh noes, bands have to tour to make money?)

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

We apparently have different definitions of that word since your idea is for the industry to suck it up and change their entire business model to accommodate people who violate the law rather than expecting the government to actually uphold its laws and petitioning them to do just that.

Quote:

Even if you do manage to devise some way to regulate it, how do you propose we apply that to websites we have no control over? The internet is designed to move around blocks and outages, the basic purpose of a router is to route traffic to and from its destination.

Again, the idea isn't a water-tight unstoppable bulwark against any movement of copyrighted materials, it's to make accessing it difficult enough for the vast majority of users that they don't bother.

We apparently have different definitions of that word since your idea is for the industry to suck it up and change their entire business model to accommodate people who violate the law rather than expecting the government to actually uphold its laws and petitioning them to do just that.

It can't be done given our current level of technology and internet structure without significantly impacting the internet in an irreparable way. I'm really not sure which part of that you're arguing. It's a global problem, we do not control the globe. If you have some answer to the problem, lets hear it.

So your argument is that the legal copyright holders should have no practical recourse to violations of their protections?

Sorry, can't get behind that and that's precisely the argument that makes people blow off worrying about things like SOPA/PIPA. It's like the pothead who'll go on for ages about how industrial hemp would save the world and it's all a big business conspiracy and the government should stop cracking down on it when, in reality, he just cares about getting high.

That's going to be the situation, either way. The problem in all of these cases is that the traffic is far too large to effectively and consistently police - for any of the parties, whether they're IP owners, website owners or the government. That's why it always seems unfair to someone when you force one of them to do it.

For music, CDs need to include more value added goodies as an incentive to buy them.

I have to give the smashing pumpkins serious cred for the way they have handled their new releases. They all go up, online, for free - and then they sell absolutely gorgeous LP/CD sets for like 25-35 bucks for the collectors. Everyone can listen - the band makes money off the premium objects and off of touring (oh noes, bands have to tour to make money?)

Armin Van Buurent hosts a radio show and weekly podcast that is released for free. So people who like his remixes get them. He releases formal studio CDs and a yearly mix CD, and goes on tour, and makes a lot of money, despite giving his music away twice a week to anyone who wants to listen.

****, I bought the 2011 yearmix album just because it was that good, and the podcasts don't survive more than a few weeks on my MP3 player before I delete them for fresh music.

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

Realistic proposals to curtail copyright theft on the internet. You aren't willing to talk about that though despite it being the only really important thing because, news flash, the affected industries aren't going to say "Oh, well! Guess it just sucks to be us!"

I'll happily discuss it, assuming you have some magic way to differentiate one set of ones and zeros from another set of ones and zeros in transit without completely destroying any semblance of security on the internet.

That's not really the point, and those who focus on this are either confused, or are deliberately sidetracking the issue. The users (both upload and download) of that content don't filter based on a stream of ones and zeros, so why assume that if you can't do this, that you can't police the content? You police it the same way people pirate it. By name. By tracking who's downloading what and who's uploading what.

How do you go to a content site and locate that pirated copy of a film you want to watch? Are you seriously arguing that the owners of a content site can't do the same **** thing to find pirated material if they really wanted to? The reality is that those sites make money on people uploading and downloading "free" content. And they **** well know that the vast majority of that content that is uploaded comes from people who aren't the artists who created it, and the vast majority of the content that is downloaded goes to people who want that artist's work, but don't want to have to pay for it.

All you have to do is get those content providers to *not* cover for the piracy. And let's be honest, as an owner/manager of such a site, you do have to almost wear a blindfold and stick your fingers in your ears to not continually see obvious piracy going on around you. But they have a financial incentive to ignore it and look the other way because most of the people going to those sites are going there to download pirated stuff. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. So how about we stop pretending that they are unwitting victims in all this. For many of these sites the assumption of pirated material being made available is part of their **** business model. Absent the pirated material, their page views would drop, and their ad revenue would drop.

Quote:

Or you could propose a solution for sites like Youtube to monitor the 48+ hours worth of video uploads they get every minute without user intervention.

No. You just have a policy (like Youtube does) of not allowing copyrighted material on their site and then you enforce it (like Youtube does). It's not impossible to do. You just have to actually be willing to do this as the owner of such a site. But most are defacto in the business of facilitating piracy and have no incentive to stop what they're doing. Absent some sort of legal action which can be taken against them, they'll keep doing it. And while I agree that laws like SOPA have problems with them, the status quo isn't sufficient. We do need something that is workable and fixes the problem.

Quote:

I am curious how you expect a company to differentiate copyrighted material from non-copyrighted material though, excluding the obvious stuff. There's a reason people are expected to protect their own copyrights, and it isn't because everyone else is lazy.

BS. It's easy to differentiate *if* you don't become a site where illegal uploads are so rampant that it's 90% of your business.

You keep talking about Hollywood changing its business model, but why not demand that content managers on the internet change their business model instead? If the justification for the need for these sites is so that budding artists can get their stuff out there without needing to have massive amounts of money for distribution and advertising, then why not set up sites that do just that? Limit uploads to those on your client list. Charge a nominal fee for space. Have those clients click some agreement that says they promise to only upload material that is either public domain or is their own original stuff. This way you can track who is uploading stuff and have legal recourse if someone uploads something illegally (and the ability to pass the legal trouble onto the person actually doing something illegal). Allow the content uploader to set pricing for the download of his content as he wishes.

If this industry were really about enabling indie folks to upload and distribute their material cheaply, we'd see a whole bunch of sites dedicated to that. It's a business model that would work and would ensure protection of the artists, their work, and their customers and would actually accomplish what you claim these content sites are about. But we all know that's not what they're about, don't we? Sure, there's a smattering of artists out there putting their stuff up for others to view, download, and possibly even buy. But that is massively outweighed by pirated material on most sites.

Let's stop pretending that this isn't a real problem. Just because a work can be digitized doesn't mean we just throw our hands up and give up on managing it.

I am curious how you expect a company to differentiate copyrighted material from non-copyrighted material though, excluding the obvious stuff. There's a reason people are expected to protect their own copyrights, and it isn't because everyone else is lazy.

Mininova did it.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I wonder though, what is the value of copyright law? What does it add to our society? I'm curious what people's take on that is. If other industries can operate without copyright or using copyleft and continue to make money - why should music etc be different? Do people truly believe that without copyright we'd like, have no entertainment industry? I mean, really?

I'm thinking say if there was no law against file sharing but selling other people's work would still be considered a no no.

Edited, Jan 20th 2012 4:32pm by Olorinus

____________________________

lolgaxe wrote:

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

As I recall, part of the legislation involved blocking access to them via domestic providers. While you could play with spoofing to get around that, most casual users won't bother.

Not trying to be a **** or anything, but you clearly don't understand what you're talking about, which I think is the problem.

The average pirate does have some basic understanding of how to use a computer. You have to in order to setup most torrent programs and/or track down proper players and codex. Even so, these minor users aren't the problem, the problem are the distributors, most of which aren't US based. The average user who can't figure out how to install a simple firfox pluggin isn't going to accidently do enough pirating to even scratch the MPAA or RIAA.

All SOPA and PIPA did was spoof the DNS address when a DNS lookup was made to a blacklisted site, that's it. There's no actual blocking going on.

It's literally as simple as setting up a proxy and entering a foreign DNS server's address as the DNS lookup. My mother can barely find the power button on her PC and I could walk her through it in five minutes. And I promise writeups will be all over the internet.

This fix is as stupid as holding a blanket in front of something and telling people it isn't there. Anyone with a brain is just going to walk around to the other side of the blanket. It isn't a matter of the degree of its effectiveness, it simply isn't effective.

I forget the exact numbers and I'm too lazy to check, but ISPs report the worst bandwidth hogs (assumed to be torrenters/pirates) are less than 5% of their subscribers but the majority of their bandwidth usage. These are the people that are the problem, not the average person. The average person grabs a few things here and there for personal use. The problem offenders grab everything they can for redistribution.